Laxminarayanan Vs. Dr. Vinod and Another - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Karnataka High Court |
| Apr-06-1999 |
| Civil Revision Petition No. 1020 of 1998 |
| Hari Nath Tilhari, J. |
| 1999(5)KarLJ25 |
| Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 107(2) and 115 |
| Laxminarayanan |
| Dr. Vinod and Another |
| Sri Shanthakumar, Adv., for ;M/s. Vagdevi Associates |
| Sri Udaya Holla and ;Sri G.S. Bhat, Advs. |
.....premises of the bank after banking hours, clause 5(c) cannot be pressed into service to terminate the services of the appellant. the incident cannot be brought within the provisions of clause 5(j) of the bipartite settlement. since the respondent has not acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank and his act cannot be considered as a gross negligence or a negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss, since it is only a stray incident wherein the respondent has quarrelled with his colleagues abusing them in filthy language and assaulted them in a drunken state after office hours and outside the bank premises. further, the scope of the appeal in disciplinary proceedings is entirely different and the appellate authority cannot enlarge the scope of the appeal by directing the disciplinary authority in what manner the charge has to be framed and how the matter has to be proved. order of the single judge was upheld. - hastimul and another, this court has very clearly held that an order granting stay or vacating stay does not amount to a case decided.order1. this revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-1998 whereby the first appellate court while admitting the appeal, granted stay order as prayed in i.a. ii filed before it.2. i put the basic question to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner how revision is maintainable from this order as stay order does not amount to a case decided. the learned counsel for the revision petitioner emphatically tried to argue that order is revisable.3. on behalf of the respondent, my attention has been invited to a decision of this court in the case of katari thippanna v s. hastimul and another, this court has very clearly held that an order granting stay or vacating stay does not amount to a case decided.4. as such, in my opinion, as the order impugned does not amount to a case decided, the revision is misconceived. no doubt, it was open to the applicant at that time to have filed an application for vacation of stay order. anyway, revision petition being misconceived, it is dismissed herewith. interim order, if any is vacated.
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 21-1-1998 whereby the First Appellate Court while admitting the appeal, granted stay order as prayed in I.A. II filed before it.
2. I put the basic question to the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner how revision is maintainable from this order as stay order does not amount to a case decided. The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner emphatically tried to argue that order is revisable.
3. On behalf of the respondent, my attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in the case of Katari Thippanna v S. Hastimul and Another, this Court has very clearly held that an order granting stay or vacating stay does not amount to a case decided.
4. As such, in my opinion, as the order impugned does not amount to a case decided, the revision is misconceived. No doubt, it was open to the applicant at that time to have filed an application for vacation of stay order. Anyway, revision petition being misconceived, it is dismissed herewith. Interim order, if any is vacated.